• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • China, Cap and Trade, and Futility

    The Washington Post reports today:

    Li Gao, China’s top climate negotiator, said any fair international agreement to curb the gases blamed for global warming would not require China to reduce emissions caused by goods manufactured to meet demand elsewhere.

    The idea that China would ever make cuts in carbon emissions a priority has always been a fable. Heritage fellow Derek Scissors explains why:

    Behind Chinese policies on competitiveness –indeed behind almost everything involving the PRC–is the Communist Party’s top priority for 20 years and counting: jobs. The well-documented demographic surge that precipitated the one-child policy has put a generation’s worth of pressure on the party to create jobs and avoid socio-political instability. This is the main reason the Chinese development pattern differs from its East Asian predecessors: Beijing has been much more open to foreign investment because the PRC’s primary concern has been employment generation–even more than economic nationalism.

    This is why China has allowed the environmental devastation already seen and why, despite its general view that climate change is dangerous, Beijing will accept nothing that even threatens to seriously inhibit employment. In his address to Congress, President Obama cited China’s new energy program as the largest in the world. On some counts, this may be accurate. It absolutely does not, however, indicate a willingness to genuinely move away from high-emissions energy production.

    China is not the only nation who has always refused to reduce their carbon emissions at the cost of economic priorities. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman R K Pachauri recently said in Copenhagen: “Of course, the developing countries will be exempted from any such restrictions but the developed countries will certainly have to cut down on emission.”

    So far all the trillions of dollars in economic harm cap and trade would cause the United States, what would we get in return? CATO’s Patrick Michaels reports:

    [E]ven if it were successfully implemented, Kyoto would have done nothing about global warming. The Kyoto treaty, climatologist Tom M. L. Wigley wrote in Geophysical Research Letters in 1998, would reduce the earth’s surface temperature by an unmeasureable 0.14°F per 50 years. This has been common knowledge since its inception.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to China, Cap and Trade, and Futility

    1. Franklin's Lock says:

      0.14°F per 50 years! This is ridiculous!

      The sun burps and our temperature goes up a full degree. A volcano emits more CO2 than the entire human race and the temperature goes down. This is futile.


    2. Alex, Windsor ON says:

      I live in Canada. It has been a cold winter this year. We need to create more pollution to get the temperature back up to where it was in 1998. The homeless are freezing up here.

    3. oscar okes/townville says:

      It should be crystal clear to everyone, that President Obama

      is deconstructing our capitalist,free enterprise system! I am not quite sure what he intends to replace it with? But I am sure it will not be good! I am not sure if there is a name for a combination of: Marxism/Socialism/Liberalism/Castroism.etc etc?

      Oh, I almost forgot: Rev. Wrightism G.#.America. God help us all!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.